A trial judge's directions on uncharged act evidence need not repeat verbatim the permissible uses identified by the prosecutor in closing submissions; an express reference to 'the matters set out by the State' is sufficient to incorporate those uses. Inconsistencies in a child complainant's evidence as to the timing or year of alleged incidents do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the account of the incidents themselves, particularly where the child was young at the time and the events occurred over a period involving multiple instances of similar conduct. The manner of cross-examination, including questions that goad a child witness into professing certainty about dates, may itself explain inconsistencies and should be considered by appellate courts in assessing whether verdicts are unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members.